If there’s one recent piece of first rate investigative blogging that deserves a much higher profile at the moment then it has to be Blairwatch’s ‘outing’ of Nicholas Kollerstrom, a prominent ‘9/11 truther’ (i.e. conspiraloon) and UCL research fellow as a confirmed (and completely unabashed) Holocaust denier.

To give a quick bit of background on the ”truthers’ for those who’ve not come across them before, they subscribe wholeheartedly to a number of bizarre conspiracy theories relating to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the July 7th London bombings; most of which contend that these terrorist attacks were not the work of Islamic extremists but were in [their version of] ‘reality’ false flag attacks carried out by the US/UK/Israel to justify the ‘war on terror’ as a means of establishing some form of ‘Pax Americana/New World Order’.
To visit ‘Trutherville’ is to immerse yourself in a rich vein of paranoid delusions ranging from the mundane – from blaming the CIA and/or Mossad for 9/11 to the claim that Al Qaeda was ‘made up’ by the FBI – to the usual major league nutball stuff about Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group and that favourite old chestnut, the International Zionist Conspiracy™, the latter of which appears, from his comments and writings, to be the particular brand of conspiracism that floats Kollerstrom’s delusional boat.

Ordinarily I might just write Kollerstrom off as just another run of the mill conspiraloon and move on, were it not for the fact that he holds down a ‘day job’ as a research fellow at University College London and actively trades on his academic credentials when writing articles for CODOH’s ‘New Revisionist Voices‘ website, where he has, to date, published three articles; Britain – Pioneer of City Bombing, School Trips to Auschwitz and The Auschwitz ‘Gas Chamber’ Illusion. CODOH, which styles itself as the ‘Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust’ – ‘open debate’ meaning open revisionism – also promotes the ‘work’ of the discredited revisionist ‘historian’, David Irving, and Ernst Zundel, both of whom Kollerstrom cites in his own articles.

Kollerstrom’s main line of academic work appears to be the history of astronomy, albeit that he has a notable sideline in publishing articles on astrology and crop circles, and an interest in pseudoscience is not at all an uncommon feature amongst ardent conspiracy theorists. Zundel started out publishing pamphlets on ‘Ufology’ before graduating to titles such as ‘The Hitler We Loved And Why‘, for which he provided the photographs, under the pseudonym Christof Freidrich, to accompany text written by Eric Thomson:

We loved him [Hitler], not because he was a “great dictator”, but because he was a great teacher, a living example of the order he preached. Without order, nothing can exist. How well we who had suffered knew this lesson! But when there is no basis for instruction, no racial pattern, no heredity, the lesson of order cannot be learned, no matter how brilliant the instructor. He taught us this all-important truth of Race. Hitler’s inspiration kindled our racial potential for construction and creativity. His order was not imposed upon us. It came from within.

We loved Hitler because he was a White Man. He practiced our White virtues of forthright honesty and his actions matched his words. If something was filth, he disposed of it as filth with sanitary thoroughness. He did not enshrine the excrescence of sick minds. He was not ashamed to burn shameful enemy propaganda which was aimed at the destruction of our souls…

…We loved him because he defended us against the racial enemy’s campaign to spread perversion among us. He knew that sexual perversion was poison and that enough of it could kill any race.

We thanked him for removing from circulation the many Jew smut publications which championed all manner of sexual deviation, including abortion, in the name of “freedom of the press.”

We loved him because he removed our alien dominators and place them back among their own kind.

Some might take the view that an involvement in the publication of books lionising Hitler, white supremacism and blatant anti-semitism to be good reason to question the credibility of Zundel’s writing on the Holocaust, but such an obvious observation seems to have escaped Kollerstrom.

Digging a little further into Kollerstrom’s interest in pseudoscience turns up some interesting signs that here we have a man who takes his interest in secret societies pretty seriously. One publisher, Foulsham, notes that Kollerstrom has ‘lectured on hermetic subjects since 1975’ and an article by Kollerstrom on the subject of astrology and alchemy appeared in the Hermetic Journal in 1990 that includes the following hilarious observation:

There were various historic dates when the alchemists of old were supposed to have made gold. A collection of these, ranging from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century, has here been assembled. An astrological analysis was conducted, to see whether any special celestial aspects were present at such moments. Thereby we discern whether these events shared in common any particular quality of time.

…By this approach we may hope to avoid the futile question of whether the alchemists ‘really’ made gold. The times when such events were recorded could well have in common some special qualities: for example, if lead was traditionally the prima materia from which the gold was made, would one expect strong aspects to Saturn? Or, would Mercury play a key role on days when the ‘Hermetic Art’ was being consummated?

Well we can certainly avoid the ‘futile question’ of whether alchemists actually transmuted lead, or another base metal, into gold – unless Kollerstrom can turn up evidence of a medieval fission reactor then the answer is a categorical ‘no’ and no amount of astrological woo is change that or provide an ‘alternative’ explanation of such claims.

Kollerstrom’s outing as a Holocaust denier naturally raises questions about his political views and the extent to which they may or not indicate any personal connections to the far right, which he denies by citing his ‘political’ background as including membership of the Green Party, CND and RESPECT and, in truth, digging around in several of the usual far right online cesspits has turned up no trace of Kollerstrom or his online alias, ‘astro3’ as an active poster. That said, whatever he may believe about his own political views, his views of the Holocaust are extensively predicated on the writings of authors who are known apologists for the Nazi regime, like Irving and Zundel, and if he personally avoids the charge of fascism for lack of evidence, then the same cannot be said in regards to a charge of anti-Semitism as his response to his outing on the main ‘Truthers’ forum indicates:

Israeli nuclear subs sold by Germany now stand ready to launch their nuclear missiles against Iran. How could Germany have done such a thing? Because it’s controlled by Zion, that’s why.

In a sense it really doesn’t matter whether Kollerstrom is a neo-Nazi sympathiser or not because whether he understands what he’s publishing or is merely naive to the point of the most abject stupidity, the view of the Holocaust he promulgates clearly and obviously has its origins in the writings of Nazi apologists and he even adopts the language of such apologia, referring to the Holocaust as a ‘Sacred Myth’. Being charitable in the extreme the best that can be said of him is that he may, just possibily, be an unwitting (and rather witless) ‘fellow traveller‘ who is less than mindful of the credibility and background of his ‘sources’. For example, his ‘essay’ on school trips to Auschwitz includes these remarks:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its the theatrical performances, including a children’s opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let’s hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly.

…the source of which he indicates to be the website of Simon Sheppard, one of the founders of Redwatch and just about as nasty a fascist scumbag as the British far-right have ever managed to produce – although, according to Sheppard, the original source of the swimming pool story is another noted Holocaust denier, Frederick Toben. Sheppard, as I documented here, was expelled from the BNP by Nick Griffin as a result of his producing and distributing an unauthorised election leaflet which contained the following statement:

Jews are in England unlawfully, since the Edict of Expulsion of 1290 has never been repealed. Now these illegal immigrants completely control our news and TV and never miss an opportunity to portray the MULTI-CULTURAL MESS [his caps, not mine] as a normal state of affairs.It was Jews who wrote the Race Relations Act, now called the Public Order Act, a law used exclusively against British Men who defy THE NEW TYRANNY in which people are afraid to say what they think…

Another of Kollerstrom’s ‘sources’, a site called ‘Judicial Inc.’ takes ‘anti-Zionist’ conspiraloonacy to new heights (or maybe depths) by publishing claims like this one…

Who Is Hezbollah?

This is a False Front Enterprise established to draw the Mideast into WW3. There are questions such as, where did they get their 14,000 Katyushas? There are only a few roads from Syria, and Israel, and its spy network would be well aware. Who is dumb enough to fire some useless rockets, that only killed a few Arab Israelis, at an armed to the teeth psycho, knowing he will decimate Lebanon. All Hezbollah did was provide an excuse for Israel to draw America closer to attacking Syria and Iran.

Now Hezbollah hands out millions to injured Lebanese. Where did they get the millions? Look to who the beneficiary is, and that’s Israel. Iran is the last standing powerhouse, it’s move would be to unite Jordan, Syria, Egypt, as a political and military block against Israel.

Whoever is handing out this money has deep pockets, could easily be traced, so if was Iran it would be on every US news program. This Hezbollah is a Israeli operation, and the money is coming through CIA.

Yes, Kollerstrom’s source, who goes by the pseudonym ‘the skunk’ but is, in some quarters, suspected of being Daryl Bradford Smith, another raving anti-Semite and owner of ‘The French Connection’ website, thinks that Hezbollah is a CIA/Mossad funded ‘false flag’ operation…

…and he also seems to think that Iranian president, Mohammed Ahmedinajad, is the third Antichrist predicted by Nostradamus.

And yet another of Kollerstrom’s sources for his writings on Auschwitz is the website of the Historical Review Press, which is owned by Anthony Hancock, who has a history of links to the far right stretching back through his father, Alan Hancock, to Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.

And, just to finish the job off, the last two of his sources that I’ve taken the time to track down are the Belgian-based ‘Vrij Historisch Onderzoek’, which was set up in the 1980’s by Siegfried Verbeke, a former member of the Vlaamse Militanten Orde (Flemish Order of Militants), yet another organisation with an ‘interesting’ history, which includes organising an annual neo-Nazi rally in conjunction with the League of St. George, and the International Historical Review, founded by David McCalden (British, ex National Front) and Willis Carto (American, founder of the Liberty Lobby). Carto’s Noontide Press is the American published of the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In all, Kollerstrom is putting up a rather novel defence here:

‘I’m not a Nazi-sympathising anti-Semite…

…but everyone I read and take as an ‘authority’ on Auschwitz is.

Whether that’s any more or less novel than the idea that Adolf Hitler was the German Billy Butlin, which would presumably make all poor emaciated sods photographed by Allied troops, on the occasion of their liberating some of these camps, entrants in Uncle Adolf’s Knobbly Ribs Contest™, I’ve no idea but I can’t say I recall the bit in Schindler’s List where the camp ‘guests’ were woken by a few xylophone chimes and a hearty ‘Sieg Heil-De-Heil’ over the tannoy.

Kollerstrom, in ‘responding’ to Blairwatch’s expose has made noises about possible legal action against them and Rachel North…

I’ve never in my life had such filthy insults as I have of late from Rachel and to a lesser extent from ‘Blairwatch’. (I’ve asked my solicitor if its actionable)

Well, if that’s the way you want to play it, Nick, then stick me on the list as well – I’m as game for a bit of ‘Spartacus’ action as anyone else on this one and more than happy to finish off the job of researching the background of your sources in full anticipation of having a day’s entertainment in court.

“Some might take the view that an involvement in the publication of books lionising Hitler, white supremacism and blatant anti-semitism to be good reason to question the credibility of Zundel’s writing on the Holocaust”

This has got to be a good candidate for “sarcastic understatement of the year”. Excellent article.

“you’re not surely suggesting a party should throughly vet the political views of everyone who wants to join them?
Otherwise, it just sound like a lame shot.”

Well, Sunny, I think part of the point of political organisations is that you do have the capacity to kick out people whose public views contradict essential aspects of the party line. But, of course, holocaust denial is no bar to joining Respect.

UCL have already deleted Kollerstrom as a research fellow where he was previously listed in the Science & Technology department on the UCL website. Fast work, since they only found out about his views on Friday late afternoon, when various bloggers got in touch with them to alert them.

While I’m here, I might as well nail another new silly conspiracy that is doing the rounds: apparently there is a belief amongst the conspiraloons that Kollerstrom was outed as part of a conspiracy involving the BBC, who apparently interviewed him on Monday – the same day the story broke on the blogs via Quarsan.

Actually, I happened to mention to Quarsan when we were chatting that I had been at Kingston Crown court all day watching the 7/7 trial and had seen Kollerstrom hassling another survivor with his ludicrous 7/7 theories.

UCL have already deleted Kollerstrom as a research fellow where he was previously listed in the Science & Technology department on the UCL website. Fast work, since they only found out about his views on Friday late afternoon, when various bloggers got in touch with them to alert them.

What a wonderfully mccarthyite response to someone whose opinions you find beyond the pale. Maybe he’ll lose his job out of institutional embarrassment. As far as I know, it’s not illegal to deny the holocaust in this country.

Noam Chomsky was unequivocal about his support for Faurrisson’s right to his views, whether he they were true or not.

A professor of French literature was suspended from teaching on grounds that he could not be protected from violence, after privately printing pamphlets questioning the existence of gas chambers. He was then brought to trial for “falsification of History,” and later condemned for this crime, the first time that a modern Western state openly affirmed the Stalinist-Nazi doctrine that the state will determine historical truth and punish deviation from it. Later he was beaten practically to death by Jewish terrorists. As of now, the European and other intellectuals have not expressed any opposition to these scandals; rather, they have sought to disguise their profound commitment to Stalinist-Nazi doctrine by following the same models, trying to divert attention with a flood of outrageous lies. So, the issue has not been settled, or even addressed.

As far as I know, it’s not illegal to deny the holocaust in this country.

No, but bringing your employers into disrepute is gross misconduct and hence reasonable grounds for dismissal. And believe me, you don’t even need to deny the Holocaust to cross the “bringing your employers into disrepute” threshold.

Paul, we have a right to free speech, not a right to an academic position from which to spunk off from! Kollerstrom should be allowed to say and write what he likes and be protected from violence against him and his property but no more. But he should be pleased with that, it is rather more than either Hitler or the clerical fascists within Respect would afford their opponents.

Yes, good work. This Nicholas Kollerstrom is clearly a nutjob. But am I the only one who thinks that if you’re in the business of “outing” people and holding them to account for their opinions, then you should at least be using your own name rather than a ‘nom de plume’?
(obviously this point would apply to bloggers generally, not just yourself).

I can’t see evidence that he has used his astronomical position to promote these ideas. I think he might have come to light earlier if he had. He has a right to his job on the basis of the scholarship he pursues, not his rather overblown threat to the “gesundes Volksempfinden”.
Despite the trowelling on of guilt by association, even unity cannot show he is an anti semite or nazi and his ‘novel defence’ is perfectly adequate. If proved false, then fair enough, you’ve bagged someone with views you don’t like.
Should Manchester sack mind reading midget Martin Amis for his call to attack Iran:Iran is our natural enemy, and we have an embarrassment of casus belli with Iran and very little legitimacy in Iraq.
A clear incitement to violence, or just an idiot spouting off?
It’s a very corporatist view that you should you should temper your personal views to that of your employer. Perhaps we should ‘reform’ the 1872 Ballot act, just in case anyone wants to vote for ‘clerical fascists’.

What UCL choose to do with the information they now have on Kollerstrom is up to them, although as it has a noted School of Holocaust Studies I suspect that the question of whether his activities have brought the University in disrepute will be one they take very seriously.

So far as his having a ‘right’ to his job on the basis of the scholarship he pursues, there is no ‘right’ to employment in law, although he does have a right to a fair hearing should UCL choose to take action against him. However, in addition to the question of disrepute, the University may well reflect on what his writings on the Holocaust and his selection of source material might have to say about his scholarship. It is absolutely a prerequisite of academic scholarship and research that one should be able to discriminate between credible and non-credible sources, a facility Kollerstrom clearly lacks in respect of his ‘extracurricular activities’, not just in writing on the Holocaust but in all his ‘work’ on 9/11 & 7/7 – I’ve come across one article of his in which he cites David Duke as a reference.

I should also point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence and I do find it difficult to to place much credence in his denials, at least so far as anti-Semitism is concern – when his writings are based not only on sources that are well-known as Nazi apologists and anti-Semites, but so so well known, in the case of Irving, Zundel, Duke, etc. that one cannot reasonably think that he would be unaware of the background of those whose material he treats as being authoritative.

Its hard to imagine a discipline less vulnerable to nazism and anti semitism than astronomy. How is a holocaust denier’s astronomy different from a committed zionist’s astronomy? If it could be, it wouldn’t really be astronomy anymore, and peer review would kick in.
He has obviously earned the right to a fellowship on the basis of his scholarship in astronomy, otherwise he wouldn’t be there. I went to look for his page, but they are blocked you will no doubt be pleased to see.
How his extracurricular activities (there’s no reason to parenthesise, that’s exactly what they are ) should be his own business. What damage can one eccentric do the UCL or holocaust scholarship? But in these times it seems normal that employee fealty must be demanded and enforced. I am sure these institutions can weather such a storm, even in such sensitive times.
Another london institution, the metropolitan police, did not punish its staff for bringing it into disrepute by blowing a brazilian’s head off or shooting a Forest Gate citizen for no reason at all.I should also point out that absence of proof is not proof of absence
I am so glad you pointed that out, as did Donald Rumsfeld in 2002. I should also point out :
absence of proof isabsence of proof
absence of proof is not presence of proof
Ideas of liberty are not just for those you approve of. Running off to his employer about what he says outside his job is a pspectacularly creepy way of going about things.What UCL choose to do with the information they now have on Kollerstrom is up to them…
The sound of hands being washed…

“How his extracurricular activities (there’s no reason to parenthesise, that’s exactly what they are ) should be his own business. What damage can one eccentric do the UCL or holocaust scholarship?”

UCL has a well-respected politics department. I imagine that should any of its academics be working on a [legitimate] critique of, say, Israeli policy in the West Bank, the fact that another UCL academic is a well-known Holocaust denier could be – at least – problematic for their work’s acceptance in the field…

Another london institution, the metropolitan police, did not punish its staff for bringing it into disrepute by blowing a brazilian’s head off or shooting a Forest Gate citizen for no reason at all.

The unpunished “staff” blew off the Brazilian’s head because they’d been told that Secret Intelligence said he was a suicide bomber, and shot a Forest Gate citizen because they’d been told that Secret Intelligence said he was an armed terrorist with a bomb factory; blaming them for what happened is fucking lame. However, if a member of the rozzers were to go public saying “I’m Inspector Knacker of the Yard, and my studies show the Holocaust never happened”, then he’d be out on his ear.

Irritatingly, the CODOH site is down and not archived in Google or web.archive, so I can’t confirm whether he published those while using his academic credentials or not.

UCL has a well-respected politics department. I imagine that should any of its academics be working on a [legitimate] critique of, say, Israeli policy in the West Bank, the fact that another UCL academic is a well-known Holocaust denier could be – at least – problematic for their work’s acceptance in the field…
I’m sure its work is robust enough to withstand a lone eccentric, who will now have been promoted to martyr.
Let’s not hope there are any critics of capitalism lurking there to embarrass its Business department.
That god Manchester doesn’t have a peace studies department to be discomfited by Mr Amis’s virulent anti persianism.
What was fucking lame, to put it kindly, was trying to obstruct an IPCC inquiry,flooding the press with incorrect account of events and maligning the victim.

“Its hard to imagine a discipline less vulnerable to nazism and anti semitism than astronomy. How is a holocaust denier’s astronomy different from a committed zionist’s astronomy? If it could be, it wouldn’t really be astronomy anymore, and peer review would kick in.
He has obviously earned the right to a fellowship on the basis of his scholarship in astronomy, otherwise he wouldn’t be there”

He’s not an astronomer, he’s an astroloGER you idiot. His speciality is crop circles!

he’s an astroloGER you idiot
An easy mistake to make from reading the above article, which is pretty much all I know about Dr nick.Kollerstrom’s main line of academic work appears to be the history of astronomy,
Someone gave him a phd, so it must be an accepted discipline. Astrology has been around a long time, so its probably worth taking an interest in. Theology is a flourishing topic, and there’s no evidence of any gods I can see. Academia is full of odd subjects. I can think of Charles Murray’s tireless (and to me , entirely pointless), heavily promoted efforts to show differences in aggregate intelligence between ethnic groups for one.
If your going to call me an idiot, I would expect you to prove it and I point to the posting guidelines:Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.

Someone gave him a phd, so it must be an accepted discipline. Astrology has been around a long time, so its probably worth taking an interest in. Theology is a flourishing topic, and there’s no evidence of any gods I can see. Academia is full of odd subjects

This is all true, but not exactly relevant. I appreciate that Godwin’s Law was broken quite early on in this debate, but there’s no need to invoke its corollary involving the length of time it takes for someone who doesn’t appreciate theology to make an unnecessary mention of the spaghetti monster.

You started off by suggesting that UCL’s actions were curtailing his freedom of speech; people pointed out that this was not the case, and that he has no freedom in law to a particular position of employment or fellowship, and that his actions had arguably brought UCL into disrepute.

You then said that he hadn’t specifically used his position to promote his ideas; people explained that this wasn’t the point (and as an argument has no legal basis), and that it was sufficient for the disrepute to be traceable back through his position to the organization.

You then mentioned that astronomy was a discipline bolstered by the peer review process and presumably therefore somehow impervious to disrepute claims (not true); people explained to you that he was an astrologer, not an astronomer, and astrology has no peer review.

You now seem to be trying to suggest that condemnation of Kollerstrom hinges on whether or not his PhD is in “an accepted discipline.” Nobody mentioned this before you: indeed, if his position at UCL depended at all on his PhD in history, then his practising of anti-semitic revisionism would certainly reflect more poorly on UCL, not less.

Given you keep shifting your stance away from areas where people have corrected you to argue about something else, and given that you have so far not demonstrated much knowledge of employment law, free speech, the humanities, the difference between proof and evidence, or details of Kollerstrom himself, It’s hard to know whether you’re trolling or not.

If your going to call me an idiot, I would expect you to prove it

It’s “you’re”, not “your”. As a good epistemologist, though, I accept that one instance does not constitute conclusive proof.

You started off by suggesting that UCL’s actions were curtailing his freedom of speech; people pointed out that this was not the case, and that he has no freedom in law to a particular position of employment or fellowship, and that his actions had arguably brought UCL into disrepute.

No I didn’t, my view is he was punished for holding an unattractive opinion and I see that as both undesirable and oppressive.

You then said that he hadn’t specifically used his position to promote his ideas; people explained that this wasn’t the point (and as an argument has no legal basis), and that it was sufficient for the disrepute to be traceable back through his position to the organization.

Well, I said there was no evidence to suggest he had. UCL’s policies obviously allow them to kick out anyone whose opinion they don’t like. I think if his scholarship was good enough to award him a fellowship, an opinion on an entirely separate matter shouldn’t affect that position. I don’t think its right to detain people for 28 days without charge, but I wouldn’t argue that it is not perfectly legal to do so.

You then mentioned that astronomy was a discipline bolstered by the peer review process and presumably therefore somehow impervious to disrepute claims (not true); people explained to you that he was an astrologer, not an astronomer, and astrology has no peer review.

If he has a phd in it, then peer review must have come into that process. That’s how they work, isn’t it?

You now seem to be trying to suggest that condemnation of Kollerstrom hinges on whether or not his PhD is in “an accepted discipline.” Nobody mentioned this before you: indeed, if his position at UCL depended at all on his PhD in history, then his practising of anti-semitic revisionism would certainly reflect more poorly on UCL, not less.

I made no such suggestion, he is being condemned for holding an unattractive opinion. Whether in astronomy or astrology, his phd was obviously worthy of his fellowship at the UCL, even if his views are not. His esoteric interests certainly seem to attract a lot of mockery.
He rejects the assertion that he is anti-semitic, and no one to my knowledge has has shown that he is. He just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the holocaust.

Given you keep shifting your stance away from areas where people have corrected you to argue about something else, and given that you have so far not demonstrated much knowledge of employment law, free speech, the humanities, the difference between proof and evidence, or details of Kollerstrom himself, It’s hard to know whether you’re trolling or not.

We all have our failings, I’ve tried to put the case for freedom of thought and expression and I don’t think I’ve deviated too much from that stance. True, I know little of dr nick, but then people above seem happy to declare him a ‘nutjob’,’loon etc and I doubt they are psychiatrists. They have a right to their opinions, of course.
As for free speech, I’ll take my view of it , where dissent is countered rather than punished, over a gloating lynch mob any day.

As Goring might have said of von Rippentrop, had the Nuremberg Trials been an industrial tribunal, he deserved to be dismissed of only for his stupidity.

PAUL ==> no one to my knowledge has has shown that he is [antisemitic]. He just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the holocaust.

I remember the time when the Holocaust was seen as the gold-standard in antisemitism, and as long as those dead Jews were grieved over and only those Jews determined not to be dead were endlessly attacked, it was alright. Just what does one have to do before being declared as having a disproportionate interest in diminishing (or promoting) Jewish misfortune? Publish cartoons mocking Holocaust victims? Oh, has Simon Shepherd not already done that?

It is one of the most intensively studied acts of savagery in one of the most intensively studied wars in history. Questions can be asked whether six million died or five million died (see John Johnson’s attempt to fudge the issue over this estimated figure) or what fabric was used for lampshades at Buchenwald, but to raise the ‘questions’ [1] found at CODOH [2] crosses the line from reasonable enquiry to wilful misrepresentation and deceit.

==> No I didn’t, my view is he was punished for holding an unattractive opinion and I see that as both undesirable and oppressive.

A couple of years ago, an engineering professor at Glasgow University was escorted from the building after colleagues expressed concern that he was holding child porn on his computer (can’t recall his name). By all accounts, his work wasn’t affected and he was of no more threat to students, I assume, that Kollerstrom was to Jewish and other sane students at UCL.

So, he was dismissed only for holding unattractive opinions. Before you say owt, he had not been charged and, if you believe Kollerstrom’s approval of Denial material if of less importance, you should be able to make any rhetorical case *without* recourse to legality.

And, yes, I am comparing Deniers and antisemites to paedophiles.

Don’t give us any of this rubbish about Kollerstrom’s freedom of speech being restricted, or being denied to right to tell people things they’ve heard a thousand times before. UCL – and many of its students – would have had their freedom restricted by being required to retain this nutter. Especially as he appears to have been touting his connexion in prompting his “unattractive opinions”.

[1] Funny how Troofers so easily segue into this other form of ‘doubt’ over historical record.

[2] Hang on, was there not some other anti-war campaigner (from Edinburgh) who recently linked to CODOH? The name’s coming to me…

Similarly, no-one has shown that Nick Griffin is racist; he just seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Muslims, the blacks, the Jews, and the foreigners…

From the BBC 17 jan:

The court heard how Mr Griffin addressed a crowd at the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley on 19 January 2004 and told them that white society had turned into a multi-racial hell-hole as Asian Muslims aimed to conquer the country.

Rodney James QC, prosecuting, told the jury Mr Griffin had concentrated on allegations of paedophile drug rapes by Asian Muslims in Keighley.

Reading excerpts from the speeches, Mr Jameson said Mr Griffin had urged the crowd to vote for the BNP in order to ensure “the British people really realise the evil of what these people have done to our country”.

During his speech at the same event, Mr Collett claimed people in Bradford and Keighley were living in hell because of rapes and muggings which were always carried out by Asian people on white people.

Seems a fairly clear case of vicious racism to me, but a jury of peers acquitted him. Perhaps we should do away with them for bring the justice system into disrepute. Is there any evidence of dr nick saying similar things?

And, yes, I am comparing Deniers and antisemites to paedophiles

Paedophiles are criminals who prey on children. Storing pictures of that nature is criminal. Holocaust denial is not. Being wrong is not. So the comparison, or more accurately the smear by association, is invalid.

Don’t give us any of this rubbish about Kollerstrom’s freedom of speech being restricted, or being denied to right to tell people things they’ve heard a thousand times before. UCL – and many of its students – would have had their freedom restricted by being required to retain this nutter. Especially as he appears to have been touting his connexion in prompting his “unattractive opinions”.

I’d like to see the mechanism for that.
I think he touted his phd, which is his to do with what he wants.

Hang on, was there not some other anti-war campaigner (from Edinburgh) who recently linked to CODOH? The name’s coming to me…

Well let’s hear the name. It couldn’t be me as I wasn’t even aware of CODOH before this brouhaha. Stalking my IP address can only tell you so much.

Attack and smear the person, but don’t try to tackle the points raised.
If you have clear answers, refute the points.
Not ONE single photo??
And why is this the ONLY historical event cicumscribed by the B’nai Brith PC brigade??
What are they scaredof??

He avers I’m an unabashed Holocaust-Denier: would it be too much to ask for a definition on this term, or is it an all-purpose hate-and-loathing term that remains undefined? Does it mean, anyone who doubts that 6 million jews were gassed? If so, I would query whether you have a right to define the term in that manner. I have argued, that the usually-designated ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz could not have been the site of mass cyanide gassings, because the residual cyanide in the walls does not permit this. There are plenty of other places it could have happened, or maybe carbon monoxide gassings took place, on which I have made no comment. So does that make me a’denier’?

But, let’s come to Unity’s main grudge, which is that I cite ‘Nazi’ sources. Do I? I certainly mention Ernst Zundel, becaue of his historic trial in Toronto, and because he funded Leuchter’s seminal research: but Unity errs in saying that I cite him anywhere – Z’s far right views are ‘good reason to question the credibility of Zundel’s writing on the Holocaust.’ I might agree here, which is why I don’t quote him. Got it?

Unity claims that I cite ‘Judicial inc,’ where is this? Then he says I allude to the website of the ‘Historical Review Press, which is owned by Anthony Hancock, who has a history of links to the far right stretching back through his father, Alan Hancock, to Mosley’s British Union of Fascists.’ Do me a favour, I cite books published by the HRP, and don’t give a toss about the political affilation of the father of its owner.

Then, ‘the Belgian-based ‘Vrij Historisch Onderzoek’, which was set up in the 1980’s by Siegfried Verbeke, a former member of the Vlaamse Militanten Orde (Flemish Order of Militants), yet another organisation with an ‘interesting’ history, which includes organising an annual neo-Nazi rally in conjunction with the League of St. George,’ I’m afraid I don’t know anything about this Belgian outfit. Doesn’t ring a bell, nope. My two articles have about 80 refs between them, can Unity point out where I allude to this?

Finally, ‘and the International Historical Review, founded by David McCalden (British, ex National Front) and Willis Carto (American, founder of the Liberty Lobby). Carto’s Noontide Press is the American published of the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ – is it the Liberal-Democratic view that no-one ought to publish the Protocols, or that anyone who does so is ethically damned? I’m really not interested in the views of publishers and my article is not about that. Why not focus on what I’m actually saying in the article, Mr Unity?
………………………………………………………….
On a different and more tranquil note, Unity scoffs at my crackpot views about crop circles: he ought to point out that this is a purely math-geometrical study (see http://www.hypermath.org). And I could add as a school math teacher these patterns have successfully been used to stimulate interest in school maths lessons.